If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say theyd vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.

Over this past weekend, several Christian conservative leaders indicated they might back a pro-life, third-party, candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.

The latest poll highlights the potential challenges for Giuliani, but the numbers must be considered in context. A generic third-party candidate may attract 14% of the vote in the abstract at this time. However, if a specific candidate is chosen, that person would likely attract less support due to a variety of factors. Almost all third party candidates poll higher earlier in a campaign and their numbers diminish as election day approaches. Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to vote for Giuliani or help elect a Democrat.

The telephone survey found that 17% of Republicans believe its Very Likely conservative leaders would back a Pro-Life candidate if Giuliani is nominated. Another 32% believe it is Somewhat Likely. Among all voters, 22% think a third party approach is Very Likely and another 33% say its Somewhat Likely.

Most Republican voters consider themselves Pro-Life on the issue of Abortion. Most Democrats and Unaffiliated Voters are Pro-Choice.

The bigger question for Giuliani might be how this possible challenge from the right might affect perceptions of his electability. Currently, Giuliani is seen as the most electable Republican candidate which helps overcome concerns that some have about his ideology. A survey conducted earlier this month found that 72% of Republicans think Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win the White House if nominated. However, the current survey finds that number falling to 58% if Christian conservatives back a third-party option.

With a third-party option on the table, only 18% of Republicans believe Giuliani would be Very Likely to win the election if nominated. Thats down from 31% in a two-way race.

Among all voters, 49% say Giuliani is at least Somewhat Likely to win a two-way match-up. That falls to 43% with a third party candidate in the mix.

Electability is a crucial issue for Giuliani because two-thirds of Republican voters seen him as politically moderate or liberal. That is a challenge unto itself in a political party where most primary voters consider themselves politically conservative. Fred Thompson is currently viewed as the most conservative candidate in the field.

Three of the last four Presidential elections have seen a candidate win with less than 50% of the total votes cast. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, there is a very reasonable possibility that neither major party candidate would top the 50% mark in Election 2008. With such a scenario, third party candidates on either side of the political spectrum could play a significant role by peeling away one or two percentage points of the vote.

Clinton is currently leading the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but her victory is not inevitable. Among Republicans, Thompson and Giuliani lead in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Crosstabs available for Premium Members only.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Rasmussen Reports Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, In election campaigns, Ive learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

But to your dramatic post, I think that since we are at war in two theaters, most Republicans and Conservatives would for sure vote for a candidate that has the temperament, tone, attitude, a certain ruthlessness, and foreign policy ideas to fight our enemies abroad, being that we have boots on the ground right now, at this moment.

And that in no way comes close the Hillary and Bill Clinton, and does reflect whomever of our viable candidates is nominated.

A serious, mature, and rational voter, (which most Conservatives are), will not just ask who they are voting for, but also ask who they will ELECT.

So, obviously I’m sticking with the good guys, lol, and not participating in the election of a antiamerican party member, ie, Dimocrats like Hill and Bill.

I will vote for the republican nominee no matter who it is. And the tactics that the anti Rudy people are using sicken me. If the alternative weren’t Hillary Clinton I would quit the republican party, quit voting and say to hell with all of you.

I will put no pressure on the republican leadership in the name of you loonies!

Bottom line is we have to ALL vote for the one who will beat Klinton or else we can kiss this country good by.That’s the whole story for me . As horrible as abortion is even worse will be Klinton in the White House . t will indirectly cause more deaths than one can imagine ( Islamic attacks , Iraq killing fields ect.)PLUS all the abortions will continue.Th esupreme court will decide abortion not the president wo is elected.

People that want a pro-freedom, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage President who doesn’t have a record of abusing the Constitution and appointing liberals to the courts and corrupt cronies to their administration are “Loonies”?

407
posted on 10/04/2007 7:03:17 PM PDT
by calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

“Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win.”

What an assinine statement. There are a great many of us “moral” conservatives that absolutely will not vote for Rudy the Rumpranger in a general election...even against Senator Clinton....We just don’t see the significant difference.

Bottom line....AND GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD....a vote for Guiliani is a vote for the destruction of the Republican party. The “moral voters” (the party’s base) will not vote for Rudolph...EVER. With the base of the party ready to stay home or vote third party if Rudy is the republican candidate.....he has NO chance of winning in a general election. If one wants to maintain the coalition that is the Republican Party, then Guiliani must go.

412
posted on 10/04/2007 7:16:19 PM PDT
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

“Can you say hello President Clinton. thanks to the 27% of Christians who would rather have a communist dictator, than Rudy.”

How utterly dense can someone be. Rudy is a homophile, a gungrabber, and worse a baby killer. He ran NYC like a dictatorship. So, what is the significant difference between him and Mrs. Clinton? They are both bad news. No lesser evil here at all. Keep hurling insults at principled Christian voters and you just further the rift in the party. IF the party is SO important, then ditch Rudy. Without the base, he cannot win.

416
posted on 10/04/2007 7:28:00 PM PDT
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

Sorry if this has been asked, but who might this third-party candidate be? Any ideas. Otherwise, it’s kind of silly to speculate on all this. It’s unlikely a conservative Republican is going to leave the party just to make a point in the election, assuring a Hillary victory. Of course, Rudy will probably choose a pro-life running mate.

No dice, I wont vote for that vile person. His presidency will be no better than a Clinton one.

You rabidly anti-Rudy types keep spouting this nonsense yet it has no basis with reality. You are so overcome with Rudy Derangement Syndrome that you're showing no better rationality than the far left.

In case you are unable to grasp the difference, just look at Rudy's foreign policy views vs. Hillary's and think about the difference in judicial picks.

420
posted on 10/04/2007 7:46:35 PM PDT
by scarface367
(The problem is we have yet to find a cure for stupid)

Funny, isn’t it, that nobody ever responds directly to the point that all this argument about whether conservatives should vote for Rudy is beside the point. If Giuliani is the nominee the Republican Party will fracture and defeat is almost guaranteed. Barring a total implosion of the Democrat Party, Rudy = electoral disaster.

Arguing that people who loathe the man should turn out in force and vote for him anyway merely to avoid a Clinton restoration is like standing on the beach and cajoling the tide to refrain from coming in. It is a waste of breath, or in this case bandwidth.

Conservatives need to stop squabbling about how best to deal with the catastrophe of a Guiliani nomination and start working together to avoid that catastrophe.

I think you are really rather pompous. Who do you seriously think has a chance of beating Hillary Tom Tancredo? Mike Huckaby? or perhaps Alan Keyes. Do you honestly think that a third party could win? Has it ever done anything other than give us, hmm, let’s see Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? No, I will not support a third party candidate./> And by the way I consider it a supreme insult that you sneeringly question whether or not I maintain my beliefs. I have not done that to anyone- I simply disagree with your assessment of the best strategy. But you choose to slander me.Save your effort, I will not reply to you again.

Watch out: you will be accused of being a troll. Or perhaps you have just given up your beliefs so that you could hang with the “ Country club Republicans”. I guess we have a list here of who we can thank if it is a close election between the only 2 real candidates, you know “D” and “R”.

We played that game out here in California with Arnold and have been sorely disappointed. In hindsight, I wished I’d voted my heart for McClintock and risked the valley that Cruz Bustamante would have given us. Now it’s a slow death and the GOP in California will never survive. I will not vote for Rudy. More babies will be saved in the long term if the people are so sickened by a Hillary presidency that they will never vote Democrat or a RINO again.

There is no difference in the judges we're going to get from Clinton or Giuliani. Giuliani appointed liberal judges by an 8-1 margins in New York. He would be dealing with a Democratic Senate who would have veto power over any nominee he chooses. Given that, there is no chance Giuliani will do anything but give the Democrats a nominee they find acceptable, which would be a liberal justices

The only way to get conservative judges on the court is to nomination a conservative President that has a desire to appoint conservative justices to the courts.

Are you sure you addressed your reply to the right poster? I didn't intend to argue with anyone, and I thought I made it quite clear where I stand on Rudy being nominated.

If I didn't let me try again. In short, I think it would mean Hillary as our next president, and that would be an unmitigated disaster for both the Republican party and the nation. Furthermore, if by some miracle Rudy were to win the general election it would be a somewhat less complete but still significant disaster for the US, all conservative Americans, and the future viability of the GOP. Is that clear enough?

433
posted on 10/04/2007 9:25:58 PM PDT
by epow
("The best we can hope for the people is that they be suitably armed" Alexander Hamilton)

Loonies? A loony is a 'so-called' Republican that is willing to compromise traditional values and principles to support a LIBERAL who epitomizes the EXACT OPPOSITE of the long-held, traditional, core, bedrock values and principles held by conservatives.

Only a 'looney' would toss the traditional conservative base 'under the bus' to support a liberal. Go figure.

437
posted on 10/04/2007 10:48:10 PM PDT
by stockstrader
(We need a conservative who will ENERGIZE the Party, not a liberal who will DEMORALIZE it!)

You, said, "Its proof that a Pro-Life third party would be idiotic, not proof that Rudy cant win."

I agree with you. A third party is a waste of money, and a spoiler for the Republican party."

Anyway there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.... I wish Dr. Dobson and other religious conservatives would come to their senses....If not, they'll only help get Hillary elected. And that would certainly be worse than if either Guliani or Thompson is elected.

440
posted on 10/05/2007 6:12:31 AM PDT
by Auntie Toots
(The GOP is still the best we've got.....AND THAT USED TO BE THE TRUTH)

So, Let me see if I understand. If I happen to agree with someone who happens to write something down I am taking “marching orders “ from them. Secondly, You yourself actually used to take directions from the sort of people you listed but have since stopped doing so? How about this: You wrote down that I want to march to the tune of 3 commentators and the implication is that I should not do so.. So perhaps I should agree with and thus taking “marching orders “ from you!

so 27% are so in love with the idea of Hillary appointing supreme court judges, silencing talk radio and imposing her will on the American people that they would cast a meaningless vote for a candidate that would have no chance.

I appreciate your civil tone. I do not like Schwartzeneger and knew he was just a Kennedy with a bit more gumption than some kind of saviour. However, I do not agree with the “ game “ you are planning to play. That is right. You too are employing a tactic, logical behavior in politics as it is essentially a bloodless war, You, however, are counting on something that I do not believe is necesarily true. You think that by letting the evil show itself the bright light of reality will so horrify, that the result will be a resurgence of the good. I am not so convinced that that will happen. I am more pessimistic about the confluence of markers that indicate we are in wholesale collapse as a moral people. I believe in triage so that we might, that is key here, might be able to someday turn this around.

“In case you are unable to grasp the difference, just look at Rudy’s foreign policy views vs. Hillary’s and think about the difference in judicial picks.”

NO STUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE. Rudy WILL NOT appoint judges that will be pro-life, anti-homosexual, or 2nd Ammendment upholding. Rudy doesn’t have the experience to dictate foreign policy.

STOP BEING OBTUSE AND LISTEN.....Preception is everything. Rudy the RumpRanger is perceived (and I believe rightfully) wrong. Your sad adherence to this Damnable Big City Yankee is going to destroy the party. IF you don’t want the RNC to continue to exist...then support G, if you want to see Hillary win in a general election, then support G.

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN....EVER!

445
posted on 10/05/2007 7:20:47 AM PDT
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

“Conservatives need to stop squabbling about how best to deal with the catastrophe of a Guiliani nomination and start working together to avoid that catastrophe.”

I agree, but it is apparent to me that the Republican Party is already fractured. Senator Thompson COULD be a uniting force, but he (although I admire a person of principle) is too mired in being a “federalist” when there our instances where it just won’t work (i.e. homosexual marraige).

446
posted on 10/05/2007 7:24:58 AM PDT
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

-—”Sorry if this has been asked, but who might this third-party candidate be? Any ideas. Otherwise, its kind of silly to speculate on all this. Its unlikely a conservative Republican is going to leave the party just to make a point in the election, assuring a Hillary victory. Of course, Rudy will probably choose a Pro-life running mate.”-—

First, A Pro-Life Veep means little to nothing under an Abortion Rights Activist President. What if Hillary chose a Pro-Life veep? Would she suddenly consolidate the Pro-Life vote behind her?

Second, Alan Keyes has all but said he’d run. Alan Keyes, amid constant ridicule from the left and the GOP “Party folks” garnered almost 1.5 MILLION votes in just the state of Illinois, running against the unbeatable Barrack Obama - who enjoyed a near 90% approval rating after his DNC speech.

And that’s just Alan Keyes - we don’t even know if the Third Party guy would be more popular. IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Besides, folks like me will give all that we have to make a Third Party run happen if we have to choose between Rudy911 and Hitlery.

Third, as far as nobody wanting to leave to make a point - think Bob Smith, Pat Buchanan, et al. Buchanan took enough votes from Bush that Florida became the recount capital of the world. Every single statistical model showed that without Pat in the race, Bush wouldn’t have needed Florida because of the other states he would have won.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.